[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 4, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H4911-H4917]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SCIENCE EDUCATION

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend 
the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 366) 
expressing the sense of Congress that increasing American capabilities 
in science, mathematics, and technology education should be a national 
priority.

[[Page H4912]]

  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 366

       Whereas the economic competitiveness of the Nation depends 
     on strong science, mathematics, and technology capabilities 
     throughout the workforce;
       Whereas the need for improvement in education is acute in 
     the areas of science, mathematics, and technology;
       Whereas our national competitiveness strategy must include 
     the goals of--
       (1) ensuring that all young persons achieve a level of 
     technological literacy adequate to prepare them for the 
     demands of a scientific and technologically oriented society; 
     and
       (2) fulfilling the need for a deep pool of talented 
     American leaders in science and technological research and 
     development;
       Whereas numerous research reports indicate the Nation is 
     not achieving these goals;
       Whereas the most recent United States National Assessment 
     of Educational Progress reveals that a majority of those 17 
     years of age are poorly equipped for informed citizenship and 
     productive performance in the workplace;
       Whereas by 2016, 35.4 percent of our workforce will be 
     comprised of minority workers, and 46.6 percent will be 
     women; and
       Whereas women and minorities continue to be underserved by 
     and underrepresented in science and mathematics: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) this Nation should dedicate its resources to the 
     development of a broad pool of citizens who are functionally 
     literate in science, mathematics, and technology;
       (2) a national science education policy in the coming 
     decade should address the crucial need areas of--
       (A) substantially increasing science scholarships and 
     providing adequate financial resources to permit students 
     from underrepresented populations to study science, 
     mathematics, and technology; and
       (B) actively involving National Science Foundation 
     involvement in curriculum development with strong emphasis on 
     reinforcing science and mathematics concepts at each grade 
     level; and
       (3) this national challenge can be met through strong 
     leadership from the White House Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy; other Federal, State, and local 
     governments; and with long-term commitments from the civic, 
     business, and engineering communities.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hall) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and 
extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on House 
Concurrent Resolution 366 now under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 366, 
expressing the sense of Congress that increasing American capabilities 
in science, math and technology education should be a national 
priority. Our Nation's youth are key to our Nation's future prosperity.
  And I have schools in my district that are ranking very high; 1, 2, 3 
and 4. They've been 1 and 2 and now they're 2 and 4. That's called the 
Townview Gifted and Talented school, ranked second in the Nation; was 
considered the best public school last year in the nation. And the 
Science and Engineer Magnet was ranked fourth this year, and it was 
number 2 last year by Newsweek magazine.
  Townview's School of Talented and Gifted was always ranked among the 
best high schools in America, and this year, by the U.S. News and World 
Report.
  In support from the high tech industry such as Texas Instruments in 
Dallas, as well as other local generous investors which have been 
critical to setting up the schools for the students' success. 
Unfortunately, few schools demonstrate the educational excellence of 
Townview, not even any more in Dallas. Congress must incentivize 
investments at the local level to help improve the quality of public 
education.
  The UTeach Program, which started in Texas and headquartered at the 
University of Texas in Austin, is a terrific education program that 
places engaged, highly trained teachers in the classroom. These 
educators, in turn, inspire their students. Young people are learning 
that math and science are fun. They're learning that these subjects are 
important, and that they can lead to fulfilling and profitable careers.
  UTeach is funded partially by generous investments from the private 
sector which needs these people for future employment. So we consider 
it an investment for them.
  UTeach has tracked the success of its educational model, and it is 
transforming the quality of math and science education in schools that 
it touches. Demonstrated methods of success must be supported and 
expanded, and this is critical for our Nation.
  Tomorrow's high-tech jobs will require a skilled workforce. Today's 
students are not being adequately prepared for these jobs, and it is my 
fear that businesses will increasingly look toward China, Taiwan, Japan 
and India for their workforce needs. Those nations are investing a 
greater percentage of their gross national product on the education of 
scientists, mathematicians and engineers. They're producing a large 
workforce of bright, young, talented individuals who work for less 
money than our citizens will. American companies are already hiring 
them. And the only solution is to produce a better prepared work force. 
The root of that preparation is education. And it is too serious and 
too important not to give the utmost attention.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish that every school could get the support and 
perform as well as Townview does. But my resolution expresses a sense 
of Congress that we must make education a much higher national 
priority.
  A couple of years ago there was a publication by the National 
Academies of Science and Medicine and the National Science Foundation 
entitled the Rising Tide Before the Gathering Storm. Well, the 
gathering storm of international competition is already here, and so we 
must reform our public education policies, provide greater challenges 
to our students and give young people the tools and opportunities that 
they need to succeed. Our economy in this country depends on this; and 
we start with well-prepared teachers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House 
Concurrent Resolution 366. This resolution expresses the sense of 
Congress that increasing American capabilities in science and 
mathematics and technology education should be a national priority, and 
I couldn't agree more. I gladly support the gentlelady from Texas's 
resolution.
  The Science Committee recognized a few years ago that this Nation 
needed to make American capabilities in STEM education a priority. Our 
current chairman, Mr. Gordon, along with then-Chairman Sherry Boehlert 
requested the report that was to become the ``Rising Above the 
Gathering Storm'' report to which we have so often referred in this 
Congress. As a result of this report, the President came out with his 
American Competitive Initiative; and this Congress passed, and the 
President signed, the America COMPETES Act, which specifically 
addresses the concerns raised in this resolution.
  In COMPETES, we're dedicating resources to create a broad pool of 
citizens who are literate in STEM subjects and we are increasing 
science scholarships and providing financial resources to attract 
underrepresented populations to STEM fields. Likewise, NSF is funding 
tremendous STEM education curriculum work in all grades, and OSTP and 
other Federal agencies, like the Department of Education, are providing 
strong leadership as appropriate at the Federal level.
  A few weeks ago, I held a hearing in Texarkana, Texas at the Martha 
and Josh Morriss Mathematics and Engineering Elementary School, a 100 
percent locally funded public school that focuses on inspiring our 
young children to excel in math and science at an early age and 
hopefully keep them interested all the way through college.

[[Page H4913]]

This school is a prime example of the kind of leadership and commitment 
necessary at the local level and included input from several groups, 
businesses, the academic community, and parents.
  However, there is always room for improvement, and we should strive 
to do more. In fact, it's imperative that we do more if we're to remain 
the world leader in innovation and technology.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution introduced by my good 
friend, Ms. Johnson.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution and 
commend my colleague, Eddie Bernice Johnson, for introducing it and the 
chairman of the Science Committee for bringing it forward.
  This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that increasing 
American capabilities in science, mathematics, and technology education 
should be a national priority. And I must say, I hope Members on the 
other side of this aisle will avoid distracting us with red herrings 
across the trail and debating other diverting matters such as drilling 
and digging in the United States and stick to this topic which is of 
critical importance.
  Since first coming to Congress almost a decade ago, I stressed the 
need for a new major national effort to improve science, mathematics, 
and technology education. I'm a product of the science revolution in 
the United States that occurred following the launch of Sputnik in 
1957. And today, as this resolution notes, we must recommit ourselves 
to creating a new generation of scientists, engineers, and 
mathematicians, and just as important, indeed more important, we need 
to build a general public that is literate and comfortable with 
science, math, technology.
  I would ask at this point to include in the Record a copy of a recent 
op-ed essay entitled ``Put a Little Science in Your Life'' by Brian 
Greene, professor of physics at Columbia and author of The Elegant 
Universe. He discusses the importance of science in everyone's lives, 
not just scientists.

                [From the New York Times, June 1, 2008]

                   Put a Little Science in Your Life

                           (By Brian Greene)

       A couple of years ago I received a letter from an American 
     soldier in Iraq. The letter began by saying that, as we've 
     all become painfully aware, serving on the front lines is 
     physically exhausting and emotionally debilitating. But the 
     reason for his writing was to tell me that in that hostile 
     and lonely environment, a book I'd written had become a kind 
     of lifeline. As the book is about science--one that traces 
     physicists' search for nature's deepest laws--the soldier's 
     letter might strike you as, well, odd.
       But it's not. Rather, it speaks to the powerful role 
     science can play in giving life context and meaning. At the 
     same time, the soldier's letter emphasized something I've 
     increasingly come to believe: our educational system fails to 
     teach science in a way that allows students to integrate it 
     into their lives.
       Allow me a moment to explain.
       When we consider the ubiquity of cellphones, iPods, 
     personal computers and the Internet, it's easy to see how 
     science (and the technology to which it leads) is woven into 
     the fabric of our day-to-day activities. When we benefit from 
     CT scanners, M.R.I. devices, pacemakers and arterial stents, 
     we can immediately appreciate how science affects the quality 
     of our lives. When we assess the state of the world, and 
     identify looming challenges like climate change, global 
     pandemics, security threats and diminishing resources, we 
     don't hesitate in turning to science to gauge the problems 
     and find solutions.
       And when we look at the wealth of opportunities hovering on 
     the horizon--stem cells, genomic sequencing, personalized 
     medicine, longevity research, nanoscience, brain-machine 
     interface, quantum computers, space technology--we realize 
     how crucial it is to cultivate a general public that can 
     engage with scientific issues; there's simply no other way 
     that as a society we will be prepared to make informed 
     decisions on a range of issues that will shape the future.
       These are the standard--and enormously important--reasons 
     many would give in explaining why science matters.
       But here's the thing. The reason science really matters 
     runs deeper still. Science is a way of life. Science is a 
     perspective. Science is the process that takes us from 
     confusion to understanding in a manner that's precise, 
     predictive and reliable--a transformation, for those lucky 
     enough to experience it, that is empowering and emotional. To 
     be able to think through and grasp explanations--for 
     everything from why the sky is blue to how life formed on 
     earth--not because they are declared dogma but rather because 
     they reveal patterns confirmed by experiment and observation, 
     is one of the most precious of human experiences.
       As a practicing scientist, I know this from my own work and 
     study. But I also know that you don't have to be a scientist 
     for science to be transformative. I've seen children's eyes 
     light up as I've told them about black holes and the Big 
     Bang. I've spoken with high school dropouts who've 
     stumbled on popular science books about the human genome 
     project, and then returned to school with newfound 
     purpose. And in that letter from Iraq, the soldier told me 
     how learning about relativity and quantum physics in the 
     dusty and dangerous environs of greater Baghdad kept him 
     going because it revealed a deeper reality of which we're 
     all a part.
       It's striking that science is still widely viewed as merely 
     a subject one studies in the classroom or an isolated body of 
     largely esoteric knowledge that sometimes shows up in the 
     ``real'' world in the form of technological or medical 
     advances. In reality, science is a language of hope and 
     inspiration, providing discoveries that fire the imagination 
     and instill a sense of connection to our lives and our world.
       If science isn't your strong suit--and for many it's not--
     this side of science is something you may have rarely if ever 
     experienced. I've spoken with so many people over the years 
     whose encounters with science in school left them thinking of 
     it as cold, distant and intimidating. They happily use the 
     innovations that science makes possible, but feel that the 
     science itself is just not relevant to their lives. What a 
     shame.
       Like a life without music, art or literature, a life 
     without science is bereft of something that gives experience 
     a rich and otherwise inaccessible dimension.
       It's one thing to go outside on a crisp, clear night and 
     marvel at a sky full of stars. It's another to marvel not 
     only at the spectacle but to recognize that those stars are 
     the result of exceedingly ordered conditions 13.7 billion 
     years ago at the moment of the Big Bang. It's another still 
     to understand how those stars act as nuclear furnaces that 
     supply the universe with carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, the raw 
     material of life as we know it.
       And it's yet another level of experience to realize that 
     those stars account for less than 4 percent of what's out 
     there--the rest being of an unknown composition, so-called 
     dark matter and energy, which researchers are now vigorously 
     trying to divine.
       As every parent knows, children begin life as uninhibited, 
     unabashed explorers of the unknown. From the time we can walk 
     and talk, we want to know what things are and how they work--
     we begin life as little scientists. But most of us quickly 
     lose our intrinsic scientific passion. And it's a profound 
     loss.
       A great many studies have focused on this problem, 
     identifying important opportunities for improving science 
     education. Recommendations have ranged from increasing the 
     level of training for science teachers to curriculum reforms.
       But most of these studies (and their suggestions) avoid an 
     overarching systemic issue: in teaching our students, we 
     continually fail to activate rich opportunities for revealing 
     the breathtaking vistas opened up by science, and instead 
     focus on the need to gain competency with science's 
     underlying technical details.
       In fact, many students I've spoken to have little sense of 
     the big questions those technical details collectively try to 
     answer: Where did the universe come from? How did life 
     originate? How does the brain give rise to consciousness? 
     Like a music curriculum that requires its students to 
     practice scales while rarely if ever inspiring them by 
     playing the great masterpieces, this way of teaching science 
     squanders the chance to make students sit up in their chairs 
     and say, ``Wow, that's science?''
       In physics, just to give a sense of the raw material that's 
     available to be leveraged, the most revolutionary of advances 
     have happened in the last 100 years--special relativity, 
     general relativity, quantum mechanics--a symphony of 
     discoveries that changed our conception of reality. More 
     recently, the last 10 years have witnessed an upheaval in 
     our understanding of the universe's composition, yielding 
     a wholly new prediction for what the cosmos will be like 
     in the far future.
       These are paradigm-shaking developments. But rare is the 
     high school class, and rarer still is the middle school 
     class, in which these breakthroughs are introduced. It's much 
     the same story in classes for biology, chemistry and 
     mathematics.
       At the root of this pedagogical approach is a firm belief 
     in the vertical nature of science: you must master A before 
     moving on to B. When A happened a few hundred years ago, it's 
     a long climb to the modern era. Certainly, when it comes to 
     teaching the technicalities--solving this equation, balancing 
     that reaction, grasping the discrete parts of the cell--the 
     verticality of science is unassailable.
       But science is so much more than its technical details. And 
     with careful attention to presentation, cutting-edge insights 
     and discoveries can be clearly and faithfully communicated to 
     students independent of those details; in fact, those 
     insights and discoveries are precisely the ones that can 
     drive a

[[Page H4914]]

     young student to want to learn the details. We rob science 
     education of life when we focus solely on results and seek to 
     train students to solve problems and recite facts without a 
     commensurate emphasis on transporting them out beyond the 
     stars.
       Science is the greatest of all adventure stories, one 
     that's been unfolding for thousands of years as we have 
     sought to understand ourselves and our surroundings. Science 
     needs to be taught to the young and communicated to the 
     mature in a manner that captures this drama. We must embark 
     on a cultural shift that places science in its rightful place 
     alongside music, art and literature as an indispensable part 
     of what makes life worth living.
       It's the birthright of every child, it's a necessity for 
     every adult, to look out on the world, as the soldier in Iraq 
     did, and see that the wonder of the cosmos transcends 
     everything that divides us.

  There is no denying that America is losing ground and global 
competitiveness to countries that are making the necessary investments 
in education and research and development. We owe our current economic 
strength, our current national security, our current quality of life, 
to the investments of past generations.
  However, the Federal Government has failed to fund adequately 
research, development, and innovation. Investment in these areas 
ensures that American people will continue to benefit from 
opportunities of the rapidly growing global economy and its inherent 
foundations.
  In August of 2007, this body passed into law, as my colleague from 
Texas pointed out, a comprehensive competitiveness package, the America 
COMPETES Act, which was based on disturbing findings of the National 
Academies' report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' that our 
Nation is severely underinvesting in engineering and the physical 
sciences.
  Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2008 budget fell short of the required 
goal. Without taking a bold, different approach in this year's 
appropriation cycle, Congress will be delivering a blow to our future 
economic security and competitiveness.
  I thank gentlelady for introducing this legislation. I hope we pay 
heed.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I apologize to my friend from New Jersey because, if we 
are not talking about the number one issue in America on the floor of 
the House, then what are we here for? Science and technology is 
critical to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. Science and 
technology will bring us to a new era where we don't have to rely on 
the energy supplies of the past. So I concur, and I support this 
resolution, and I'm glad people are debating it.
  But you know what the people in America are debating. You know it. 
Everybody was home during the last 10 days. They're talking about this, 
and this is what we ought to be doing. You mentioned in your discussion 
that we don't have the funds. Well, if we went into ANWR, which is the 
size of the State of South Carolina and had a drilling path that formed 
the size of Dulles Airport or a football field and put a postage stamp 
on that, we've got the revenues. Just with the royalties from ANWR we 
could fund science and technology. In fact, we're going to have a 
resources bill on the floor that's going to address at least the pay-
for, which was a method to address Mr. DeFazio's issue on leases.
  Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, I will.
  So we're willing to talk about this, but golly, if we're not talking 
about energy and the price of gasoline at the pump, then what are we 
doing?
  Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. HOLT. Quite simply, the reason gasoline prices are so high 
today--of course there is international speculation--is there's demand 
from other countries; there's the falling value of the dollar. 
Principally, it is because, in past decades, we failed to wean 
ourselves from fossil fuels. We have failed to make the investment in 
research and development that would make that possible. You're talking 
about drilling in Alaska.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. HOLT. If I may continue.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, you may. I'm just going to debate.
  If we had the resources from the royalties on oil and gas exploration 
in the outer continental shelf or if we had the resources from the 
royalties from ANWR, we would have the money to be able to segue into a 
national debate on solar, on wind, on biotechnology, on the 
nanotechnology. There is a whole pot of money out there. A lot of 
people in America think that we have no fossil fuels, no energy 
resources left in this country. So this is the problem. I mean you kind 
of identified it, but when a barrel of crude oil is $23 in January 2001 
and in January 2006 it goes up double and now it's up double again, 
that's the problem.
  We have to have a long-term and a short-term strategy. Our debate is 
the science and technology. That's a long-term debate. But what do we 
do about easing the cost of the high food prices, which is in direct 
correlation to energy costs? We're talking about schools. What is the 
number one problem in schools today? Diesel prices for school buses has 
doubled. Energy costs for heating and cooling are doubling. That goes 
to the local taxpayer. So we ought to be talking about this.
  Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. HOLT. It's the wrong argument. We are here to talk about the 
future that we will get from investment in research and development.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, we want to talk about the future, 
but what our constituents are talking about is the present. There has 
been more than $1.68 increase in gasoline prices. How can we even send 
our kids to the university if energy costs have doubled? We should have 
both debates, and we should not be afraid to talk about how to get out 
of this problem.
  Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. HOLT. We will not get out of this problem by doing more of the 
same that we have been doing.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, you all want to do no exploration, 
no gas, no coal, no nuclear, which brings costs up. We're saying let's 
bring on more supply. Let's mitigate the cost. Let's plan for the 
future. We are talking about now. We are not talking about 30, 40 years 
from now. We need to talk about that debate. Your committee is a great 
committee to talk about the future, but we have got $123 a barrel of 
crude oil today. No nanotechnology, no recognizing science and 
education is going to bring that cost down.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. 
Lipinski from Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution 
that we are right now talking about on the floor, and I want to commend 
my colleague from Texas for introducing this legislation. My 
constituents certainly understand that we need to both look at problems 
that are facing us right now, today, and also we need to plan for the 
future or else we wind up in situations like we're facing today.
  As vice chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, as 
well as a former college professor and engineer and husband of a 
credentialed actuary, I became aware of the need to invest in STEM 
education for young Americans. Providing high-quality jobs for 
hardworking Americans must be our top priority. In order to accomplish 
that, we must be proactive.
  The necessary first step is an improved STEM education in schools 
because an educated workforce is the foundation for economic strength. 
For generations, science and engineering have been the base of 
America's economic growth. We were leaders in the industrial 
revolution, and we initiated the Internet age. Today, these fields 
continue to have great potential for growing our economy and employing 
more Americans.
  Between 1983 and 2004, the percentage of the U.S. workforce in 
science and engineering occupations almost doubled. Ground-breaking 
discoveries in innovative technologies are continually creating new 
industries and opportunities. Nanotechnology, which we just discussed 
in the reauthorization of the NNI, is just one of the many exciting 
industries that are revolutionizing the international economy.

[[Page H4915]]

  However, if we are not careful, America will be left behind in future 
technological revolutions. This fact was highlighted nationally when 
the National Academy of Sciences released its ``Rising Above the 
Gathering Storm'' report which emphasized the need for the government 
to improve science, technology, engineering, and math for STEM 
education. In the 110th Congress, we confronted this challenge head on 
by enacting the America COMPETES Act. But additional measures to 
improve our global standing are still needed.
  The resolution before us today will assist the United States in 
dedicating its resources to the STEM field and in promoting science 
education policy by educating a broad pool of Americans in these 
critically important fields. These areas are vital to America's 
economic competitiveness, and this resolution will help to ensure a 
vital future for next generation of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, we have challenges ahead of us, but the American people 
have always succeeded in conquering their greatest challenges. With 
this resolution, we will get that and ensure that all American students 
receive the skills and knowledge required for success in the 21st 
century workforce.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution to plan for 
the future and plan for a brighter future for America. This resolution 
helps us to do that.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
use, subject to the amount of time I have left. Could you tell me how 
much time I have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 12\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. I thank the Speaker.
  The gentleman from New Jersey keeps talking about doing away with 
fossil fuels. You know, that's just almost laughable. You do away with 
fossil fuels today, a year from today, 2 years from today, 5 years from 
today, 10 years from today, turn these lights out, cut out your air 
conditioners, forget about driving up to anywhere to get gasoline or 
oil, forget about building the roads, heating and cooling, just shut 
her all down, forget about it, and forget about that 40 percent we get 
from a Nation that doesn't trust us, Saudi Arabia, that's all fossil 
fuels. We have no control over them.
  Sure, we ought to have technology to address fossil fuels to make it 
cleaner, but we're whistling Dixie if we think we're going to do away 
and do without fossil fuels.
  It's easy to condemn and not trust the oil and gas people, but 
without them, we wouldn't have the lights we're using right today. We 
wouldn't have the gasoline that's in our cars, the money that it takes 
to build asphalt roads, and I could go on down the list forever.
  Where do you think 40 percent of that comes from? Saudi Arabia. 
Another 20 percent from other Arab Nations just like Saudi Arabia that 
don't trust us and we don't trust them. That's what it's all about. We 
can't do without fossil fuels. That's foolishness.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it's high-time that we realize that we have to 
work together and seek technology to lessen the effect of carbons and 
be sensible about it, be reasonable about it, but we can't just shut 
this off and condemn those that are producing, the men and women in the 
oil industry that are producing the lights that we share today and 
cleaning the air that we have today.
  We need to keep looking for technology to make it better and cleaner, 
but it's foolish to talk about doing away with it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to have as much time as he may 
consume to speak on this issue.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady for her generous grant of time.
  There might be some small grounds for agreement here. I did hear both 
the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from New Jersey, and 
particularly the gentleman from Illinois, in talking in support of the 
legislation that's actually before us, which does not pertain to gas 
and oil prices or supply in any way, saying we needed and he supported 
the idea of research, investment, and education, and moving toward new 
technologies.
  The gentleman from New Jersey talked about a transition from a 
petroleum-based economy. I think there's some grounds, small grounds, 
for agreement there.
  But I guess, and I think most American people would agree with that, 
they know we can't, you know, drill big and burn our way out of this 
problem. We've got to cut our dependence to OPEC and other foreign 
sources of oil, and we've got to mitigate the damage on our economy.
  But then that's where the disagreement starts because mitigating the 
damage to consumers today means taking some tough votes in this House 
of Representatives. One tough one was May 20 of last year, rollcall 
332. Now, that seemed a no-brainer to me, but it was really tough on 
the Republican side, and the gentleman from Illinois voted against it.
  It was to have the Justice Department, United States Justice 
Department, investigate collusion by the OPEC Nations to unnecessarily 
constrain supply and drive up the price for American consumers. That 
was a tough vote for the gentleman from Illinois. He voted ``no.'' He 
didn't think the Justice Department should investigate. I also have a 
bill saying the President should file a complaint against the OPEC 
countries in the WTO.
  You know, the Bush administration, in fact, is now investigating 
collusion by OPEC. They still haven't filed a complaint in the WTO. So 
the Bush administration is taking a step that the gentleman from 
Illinois opposed, investigating collusion which is gouging consumers. 
We need a new energy future, but we don't need to allow our consumers 
to be price gouged on the way there.
  Mr. Wu raised another issue which the gentleman just brushed off, 
which is the whole issue that credible analysts say, because of the 
Enron loophole--remember, Ken Boy? He might be dead but his memory 
lives on, and about 50 cents a gallon for the American people. Ken Boy 
Lay of Enron, one of the President's best buddies, got a special 
loophole from this Republican Congress deregulating derivatives in 
energy trading so that they could speculate. Well, he's dead, Enron's 
bankrupt, but the speculation is rampant.
  And experts tell us probably 50 cents on every gallon, 50 cents on 
every gallon today, you want to give immediate relief, reregulate the 
commodities market. You're not regulating the price of gas. You're just 
saying you can't have derivatives and you can't have Morgan Stanley 
holding more futures contracts and more fuel than ExxonMobil. Just 
reregulate the market. They can't self-deal. Just reregulate the 
market. Just bring some regular trading back to that market that 
existed before 2000. You could save tomorrow 50 cents a gallon.
  Now, you can talk about ANWR, and he talked about it with great 
certainty. I've been sitting in on debates for 20 years over ANWR. One 
well was drilled. What was there we don't know. It was proprietary. 
There are estimates from a little bit to a lot of oil. But he knows 
exactly how much is there, interesting, and how much revenue it would 
bring, even more interesting, since right now oil from Alaska can and 
is being exported from the United States of America. I guess he's 
worried about the Chinese energy problem because that's most likely 
where any additional supply from Alaska would go until we develop more 
refinery capacity, which the industry refuses to do. And there are ways 
to drive them to make that investment, but the gentleman doesn't 
support that legislation either, which I've introduced.
  So we're hearing a lot of bloviating and talk on that side of the 
aisle because Republicans are running scared because their coffers have 
been filled by this industry for years and they were put into power and 
Bush was put into the White House and Dick Cheney was put into the Vice 
President's mansion by this industry. And this industry is kind of 
unpopular right now.
  So they want to pretend they want to do something 10, 15, 20 years 
out. Let's even bring it a little closer in. The gentleman again talked 
about ANWR. Well, right just a little way away from ANWR, guess what, 
there's something Bill Clinton leased called the Naval Petroleum 
Reserve. We know there's oil

[[Page H4916]]

under that. Bill Clinton leased it. Bill Clinton's been gone seven-and-
a-half years. How time flies.
  How many producing wells are there in the Naval Petroleum Reserve 
drilled by American companies who have leased that reserve? None, not 
one, not a single one.
  So, if the need is to get more production going in Alaska, how about 
they drill the wells in the Naval Petroleum Reserve where we know 
there's oil as opposed to pretending there might be oil in ANWR, and we 
could drill way over there, and it's also a lot further from the 
existing pipeline and other shipping capabilities.
  So there's a heck of a lot of stuff, as I said earlier in my 45-
second response--I regret I didn't have time at that point to yield to 
the gentleman. He's not here now. I would have given him at least 30 
seconds--to develop out there, but the industry isn't developing it. 
Ten thousand permits that haven't been actuated, and they start talking 
about Illinois.
  These Federal leases aren't in Illinois. I'm not aware of any Federal 
leases in Illinois for oil exploration. These are off the coast where 
80 percent of the supply is accessible through existing leases. The 
industry just hasn't seen fit to develop it. Why not? Because it's 
working really well for them right now. Record prices. They don't 
really care about supply. They sure as heck don't want more supply to 
bring down the price.
  Plain and simple, they're extorting the American people. They're 
extorting through collusion with OPEC. They're extorting through 
speculation in the energy markets, and they're extorting by withholding 
their drilling from leases they already have while pretending they need 
more. Plain and simple, it's a scam.
  And I'm really disappointed that the gentleman is going to oppose my 
bill later when he talks about all the revenue that could be realized, 
when right now royalty-free oil is flowing out of the gulf because of a 
bureaucratic error, and he doesn't want to fix that problem because he 
thinks the oil companies need the money more than my counties and 
schools, and we'll hear more about that later.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop) 3 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the comments that have been made so 
far. I'm reminded by President Reagan, who once said there you go 
again, and some of those statements can apply here.
  But one statement was they aren't accurate, but what we are talking 
about here in this part of the discussion deals with how real people 
are impacted in their daily lives.
  We no longer are talking about energy consumption as an ethereal 
process or whether it meets different needs, kind of a policy concept. 
We're talking about how people, real people, bake their food, heat 
their homes, and how they keep their jobs.
  For every dollar that there is an increase in oil prices and gasoline 
prices, it simply means that jobs are lost, that revenue does not flow 
here. Social Security programs are diminished, and the overall quality 
of life is diminished. We're talking about real people and how real 
people are impacted.
  For every dollar a poor person or a middle-income person has to spend 
on increased energy consumption, that's a dollar they cannot spend on 
luxuries like tuna casserole. This is what we're talking about. If 
you're extremely rich, you can try and buy your way out of it like an 
old medieval duke buying indulgences from the Catholic church. But for 
middle-income people and poor people, we are talking about how they 
live their lives, and we're talking about a country that has more 
energy potential locked up than other Nations have in their entire 
countries.
  That's the concept that is here, and yet we always come back to picky 
little reasons why we can't develop the source, renew that source or 
build on that particular source as well.
  We can't develop in ANWR because even though the Carter 
administration set this particular piece of property aside for energy 
development because it offends somebody. We can't have windmills off 
the coast of Massachusetts; it doesn't look right. We can't drill off 
the coast of Florida because it might offend the tourists someway.
  We all have picky little reasons on why we can't do it, and the net 
product is we harm our own people because we don't have a policy that 
provides a positive reinforced policy, a strong program that will 
encourage conservation but also encourage production of every source of 
resources that we have at our disposal.
  It has to happen and it has to happen now because we're dealing with 
real people.
  We're also dealing with the security of this country. Early on this 
floor, they talked about an element of section 526 that was passed in 
the energy bill which simply had the proposal of cutting out the needs 
of our military in their advancement for alternative synthetic fuels. 
That's one of the things we're looking at. Five years ago, it cost us 
$2 billion a year for petroleum for our military. Today, we're talking 
about $12 billion a year. We cannot do that any longer. Those are the 
issues we have to have.
  We have to realize that what we're talking about is real people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Who we are hurting are real people, and those 
people who are in the middle income and those people who are on the 
edges of our society and those people on fixed incomes, which is about 
45 million Americans, those are the ones who get hurt first.
  And the more we talk about the philosophy, what should or should not 
be done, and the later we decide to take as our policy statement that 
we will become energy secure and energy independent and we will develop 
all the resources we have at our disposal to become energy independent, 
that's when we actually decide to try and help people.
  I thank the Speaker for his indulgences.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. We reserve the balance.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 7 minutes.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. McHenry) 3 minutes.
  Mr. McHENRY. I rise today to agree with the resolution, but the real 
substance of the debate on the House floor today should be about gas 
prices. That is the substance of what we should be talking about as a 
people because I know my constituents are talking about it. They 
commute to work each day and pay and pay and pay high gas prices every 
day. And it is because this Congress hasn't acted.
  Now, certainly the resolution calling for more math and science 
students, that's well and good, but what we should be talking about 
right now is how we're going to become energy independent as Americans, 
how we use American resources, whether it's natural gas, petroleum 
products, energy research, how are we going to invest in those things 
now.
  This Congress, this Democrat leadership has failed to act, and I 
think that's irresponsible.

                              {time}  1345

  You know, one answer that they say is conservation. That's what some 
on the other side of the aisle say is the answer. And, you know, 
conservation is a sign of personal virtue, but we cannot conserve our 
way to energy independence, American energy independence.
  So what do we do? Well, I believe we have to use our technology and 
our innovation here in the United States to become energy independent. 
We have vast resources, whether it's oil shale in the Rocky Mountain 
west, whether it's tar sands in our neighboring Canada, in order to 
harvest oil out of those areas. We must do it, though. The American 
people are paying close to $4 at the pumps, and that's unacceptable. 
And I think, beyond that, when it comes to energy, we need an American 
solution, an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation, 
not beholden to the Saudi royal family.
  I call on this Congress to act, to streamline the regulation process 
so we can get new refineries online, to open up new areas of 
exploration. That's what we should be doing, not simply debating this 
resolution, but working on real, substantive issues the American people 
need and desire.

[[Page H4917]]

  My constituents in western North Carolina demand action when it comes 
to lowering gas prices. And this Congress can do something about it, 
but we have to open up new areas of exploration, we have to increase 
refining capacity, and we have to invest in renewable energy sources 
that are clean, efficient, and American solutions that make us self-
reliant.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to 
how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 3 minutes.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I would like to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to Mr. DeFazio to respond to the last presenter.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. There are 36.9 billion reasons why we aren't doing more 
to protect consumers today, why we haven't filed the complaints against 
OPEC, why the Republicans voted against investigating collusion by 
OPEC, why the Republicans created loopholes in energy trading so that 
Enron could get rich--well, they went bankrupt, actually, but others 
can speculate in the market, driving up gas 50 cents a gallon today. 
And they don't want to close that loophole because their rich buddies 
benefit from it, just like their rich buddies in the oil industry 
benefit from the lack of supply.
  But I was shocked to hear the gentleman talk about needing to loosen 
up regulations in order to get more refinery capacity. A few years ago, 
George Bush offered to let any oil company that wanted to build a new 
refinery build it on a closed military base and waive all the 
environmental laws. How many takers did he get? Big goose egg, zero, 
none.
  What did the head of Exxon Mobil say just 2 weeks ago? We're not 
interested in building refineries; we're doing just fine the way things 
are. They are restraining, and they have restrained over the last 
decade, refinery capacity in collusion to drive up the price. It's yet 
another excuse to drive up the price.
  So they don't want to build refineries and give relief to the 
American consumers. They don't want us to take on the collusion of OPEC 
because they're making money off of it. They don't want us to stop the 
speculation in the commodities market because Big Oil and big Wall 
Street are making money off it.
  And then they want to shift to this fatuous debate about ANWR. They 
know exactly how much oil is there, unlike anybody else in the world 
except the one company that drilled the one proprietary well 25 years 
ago, they're the only people who know if there is or isn't anything 
there. But we do know underneath the former National Petroleum Reserve, 
set aside by a much more far-sighted administration 70 years ago, there 
is a sea of oil underneath the National Petroleum Reserve. And Bill 
Clinton leased that to the oil industry because they were carping about 
the need for new places to go and drill for oil. Bill Clinton has been 
gone 7\1/2\ years. How many producing wells are there in the Naval 
Petroleum Reserve? Goose egg, zero, same as the number of new 
refineries, goose egg, zero, because they're making huge profits the 
way it is. Why should they give relief to the American consumers 
because relief means lower extortionate profits for them. They have no 
intention of giving relief to the American people. This is a red 
herring.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I appreciate the 
opportunity to respond to my colleague and his utter fabrication about 
the history.
  Now, talk about rewriting history here; instead of complaining about 
the problem, we're offering solutions. And I'm proud that I'm part of 
the solution. And that solution is to hold the oil companies 
accountable. That's right, the gentleman is right about that. But I 
think we have to go a step further. We have to make sure that 
refineries can get online. The reason why they won't build new 
refineries is that regulation that this Congress supports, the trial 
lawyers as well, and the extreme environmental community that fund the 
left, and my colleagues on the left, they're all about shutting down 
new refinery capacity.
  Beyond that, my colleague that just spoke is not for any exploration 
in this country whatsoever. And the American people know this, Mr. 
Speaker. The American people know that we need more supply of energy, 
and that will bring prices lower, not this rewriting of history that my 
colleague just issued.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds 
to the gentleman to respond, Mr. DeFazio.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady.
  First off, it was the head of ExxonMobil, the most profitable 
industry in the history of the world, who said he has no intention of 
building a refinery. He didn't mention regulations or bureaucracy. He 
said they're doing just fine the way it is, why would they build 
another refinery? And other CEOs of oil companies have said the same 
thing.
  It's not bureaucracy or regulation. They didn't take Bush up on his 
loophole to put it on closed military bases. So that's not the issue. 
Don't try that stuff.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  The gentleman from Oregon is a very good speaker and knowledgeable. 
He's been here a long, long time. He said there are a thousand reasons 
why we're out of energy and why we're in the situation we're in. I will 
say maybe there's two less. You just take these two, though, out of 
that thousand, I don't know how many he has left. But when we talk 
about who's furnishing fossil fuels, and who's furnishing nuclear 
energy, who's furnishing clean coal, who's furnishing solar. And no one 
has objected to this or no one has said it's not so, 91 percent of the 
House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of 
American-made oil and gas, while 86 percent of the House Democrats have 
historically voted against increasing the production of American-made 
oil and gas. I don't know where the other thousand are, but that's the 
major reason we're where we are today.
  They don't want to drill here. They won't let us drill off the coast 
of Florida. They don't want to drill up in ANWR. Let me tell you 
something, we better be drilling on American soil or we're going to 
have to send our American boys to take some energy away from someone. 
And that would be an absolute crime when we have plenty right here at 
home. It's a shame we don't use our own.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say 
that what we're really discussing is the House Concurrent Resolution 
366, making science and math and technology education a priority. And I 
now would like to ask my colleagues to support and pass this 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res 
366.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________